June 2015 Boards forecast contest

I think that I posted the "minimum progression" scores that come into play when raw scores are generally low, but that was several years back and I tend to go from my memory or whatever seems fair.

The reason for the minimum progression rule is primarily to equalize the monthly scoring so that it tends not to matter very much which two months you drop from your totals, also, to reward better efforts in extreme cases where our normal scoring rules would require a broader error category. It's one thing to be 15% out on 90% of normal PRC (worth 10/15) but if you say 140 when it's 174 as our May leader Jpmarn did, then I think you deserve more than the raw score of 4/15 anyway, and with that nobody else would have scored anything (even those who said 120 or 130). Then there was the Dec 2010 IMT and MIN which would have generally left the scores all near zero.

However, just to give a reference point that I may remember in future cases (the June 2015 chill), and as a comment on this case, sometimes the numbers are marginally close to the standard and so they don't all need adjusting. Anyway, from now on, these will be the minimum progression values and you can probably figure out your score for the June MIN from this:

IMT -- must match or exceed
... 23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1.

MAX,MIN -- must match or exceed
... 18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,10,9,9,8,8,7,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2,1,1

PRC -- must match or exceed
... 15,14,13,12,11,10,10,9,9,8,8,7,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2,1,1

SUN -- must match or exceed
... 10,9,9,8,8,7,7,6,6,5,5,4,4,3,3,2,2,1,1

BONUS is always scored in a rank order system and usually no issues arise.

Now as I went through those I realized that the May IMT did not start from 23 as the top scores were 20, but if I go back and correct those it will simply add roughly equal amounts to all scores and there were a lot of ties near the top so I think the fairness factor there would say to leave them as is. Also I would benefit more than most, so I'm happy to leave them alone. There have probably been one or two cases in the past where technically, these rules could have kicked in and boosted one or two scores, but I might not notice unless the general run of scores looks way too low, then we start up the machine and spit out the scores.

At this rate, the MAX will be the next problem child in our scoring family, but maybe that will adjust itself later. So whatever else happens with the MIN now, I think you can determine your score. When there are ties, the unused numbers in the progression are bumped out. Example, let's say three forecasts are tied for 3rd best MIN, then the scores actually go 18,17,16,16,16,13 etc. ... There can also be cases where some raw scores break through the slope and would be higher than minimum progression, in which case, those scores stand. Nobody ever loses in the min-prog game. I'm actually on the short list to be the next FIFA dictator-general or whatever that guy is called.

Bonus moves to 4 as of today, Monday 15th missed by 0.4 with Shannon at 19.6 the highest. Will edit in the details for today or perhaps somebody else will post them, at the 1500h hour I can see two stations at 21 C.

Thursday 18th was a narrow miss for the bonus with 19.3 (JC) the max. Holding at five days.

Confirming that Sunday and Monday missed on the bonus, today (Tuesday 23rd) has apparently launched, so count stands at 8.